So I presume you apply the same standard to civilians. That would imply if somebody is standing in their house, or on their front porch and somebody, in fact anybody, approaches and raises their hand in a way where they might shoot, the person standing in or around their house has the right to start shooting.
And it would seem that if the other person actually had a firearm in their hand the homeowner shouldn't have to wait to see if they are going to "accept a bullet if that’s what the man intended." So by your logic it is perfectly reasonable for anybody who sees someone else with a firearm to start shooting at them. After all, how could they know the other person wasn't about to shoot them?
So in your logic there is a very low threshold for shooting someone. If that was the actual standard we use in our society we'd have shootouts all the time, and anyone carrying a firearm would be a legitimate target.
Nobody should be shooting anybody unless they have a realistic fear of imminent danger to themselves or others, or of course the situation meets some of the other more specialized circumstances where use of deadly force is justified.
These are two types of circumstances.
In the instance you described, I as the homeowner am not tasked with taking the person in custody. For that reason I would hunker down adjacent to the door and wait for entry there. I would be prepared to respond to entry at any other location. Hopefully he would move on.
Once he came inside the home I would have very little patience with the individual.
If he came into my presence and made the wrong move, I would take him out.
I would not have left my home looking for an easy target, knowing full well I might put myself in jeopardy.
I would be home minding my own business, not wishing anyone else loss of property or personal harm.
Once a person looks me or my family up to cause trouble, all bets are off.